Vicarious Liability

• What is vicarious liability?

  It is a mechanism by which another party can be made liable for the tort committed by an employee.
• What must be established before determining vicarious liability?

  A tort's existence must first be established.
• What are the two questions to ask after establishing a tort's existence in vicarious liability?

  Was the tort committed by an employee, and was it committed in the course of employment?
• What are the three tests to determine if a tortfeasor is an employee?

  Control test, organisation test, and economic reality test.
• What does the control test assess in the context of employment?

  It assesses the amount of control exercised by the employer over the employee.
• How has the control test changed with technological advancements?

  The amount of control exercised by the employer has deteriorated.
• What does the organisation test determine?

  It determines if tasks performed are integral to the business or incidental.
• What case is associated with the organisation test?

  Stephenson Jordan and Harrison Ltd v McDonald and Evans Ltd (1952).
• What does the case Whittaker v MPNI illustrate regarding the organisation test?

  It illustrates that the employer may not control details, but the role can still be integral to the operation.
• What factors does the economic reality test consider?

  It considers the method of selecting staff, responsibility for tax deductions, sick pay, holiday payments, and determining hours worked.
• Which case is associated with the economic reality test?

  Hall v Lorimer (1992).
• What is the significance of the cases Young and Woods Ltd v West (1980) and Airfax Footwear Ltd v Cope (1978)?

  They illustrate that the substance of the argument is not stated intentions.
• What does the case Duke v Martin (1993) contribute to the discussion of vicarious liability?

  It contributes to the understanding that each case is decided on its own merits and facts.
• What is the distinction between being in the course of employment and one's own frolic?

  Being in the course of employment relates to actions taken as part of job duties, while one's own frolic refers to personal activities unrelated to work.
• What does the case Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board (1942) illustrate?

  It illustrates the distinction between course of employment and one's own frolic.
• What does the case Smith v Stages (1989) indicate about travel in relation to employment?

  It indicates that travel is included in the course of employment.
• What does the case Lister and others v Hall (2001) state about the connection required for vicarious liability?

  It states that all that is required is a very close connection between the tort and employment.
• Can an employer be liable if the employee's conduct is illegal?

  Sometimes, yes, as illustrated in the case Maga v Birmingham Roman Catholic Trustees.
• Can an employer recover compensation paid from the employee in cases of vicarious liability?

  Yes, the liability is essentially joint, and under the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978, the employee can be made to reimburse if in breach of contract.
• What are the key considerations in determining if an employee was in the course of employment?

  • Distinction between course of employment and one's own frolic
  • Cases illustrating this distinction:
  • Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board (1942)
  • Smith v Stages (1989)
  • Lister and others v Hall (2001)
• What are the implications of the Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978 in vicarious liability cases?

  • Liability is joint between employer and employee
  • Employee can be made to reimburse the employer if in breach of contract